Peven wrote:McWeeny's reviews anymore are worth less than used toilet paper

Seth Rogen disagrees.

But seriously, read McWeeny's review of this. He actually hates that the characters have backstories.

Really? because it seemed to me in that review that McWeeny was decrying the prevalence of clumsy on-screen exposition (sometimes involving back story) in Disney blockbusters in recent years - lazy screenwriting that just has characters tell their story rather than having the film show it. At what point does he actually say what you say he said? I'm pretty sure he doesn't say that. Does he actually say that? There's no way you can quote him as having said that, or even implying it. He doesn't. Admit it.

Peven wrote:McWeeny's reviews anymore are worth less than used toilet paper

Seth Rogen disagrees.

But seriously, read McWeeny's review of this. He actually hates that the characters have backstories.

Really? because it seemed to me in that review that McWeeny was decrying the prevalence of clumsy on-screen exposition (sometimes involving back story) in Disney blockbusters in recent years - lazy screenwriting that just has characters tell their story rather than having the film show it. At what point does he actually say what you say he said? I'm pretty sure he doesn't say that. Does he actually say that? There's no way you can quote him as having said that, or even implying it. He doesn't. Admit it.

McWeeny already made this film. He will be happy to tell you every single thing he thinks is wrong with his "Masters Of Horror" episode "Abnormal Currents," directed by John Carpenter, and it's not a small list. But McWeeny will also tell you that they dealt with very similar material, they did it in 2006, they did it for 1/4 of the money Disney spent, they had Ron Perlman who was amazing in the film, and McWeeny didn't spend a year of his life bent in half like a carnival freak blowing himself in public in the lead-up to the release of the episode.

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

Really? because it seemed to me in that review that McWeeny was decrying the prevalence of clumsy on-screen exposition (sometimes involving back story) in Disney blockbusters in recent years - lazy screenwriting that just has characters tell their story rather than having the film show it.

Yeah, but almost every film has that. Every film has characters talking about their pasts. It's part of character developement. Most films start with the characters at some point after their birth.

STAR WARS had it. Everybody loves STAR WARS, right? McWeeny named his kid after STAR WARS so I know he does. In fact, people loved those expository ramblings so much that they took those couple of lines of Obi-Wan talking about mentoring Darth Vader and they turned those couple of lines into three whole movies and some television shows. You're telling me you'd rather watch the STAR WARS prequels and see that whole journey instead of STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE in which that's simply part the character developement that feeds the present story?

I haven't seen PIRATES 4 yet, but I'm willing to bet this isn't a BEFORE SUNRISE type film in which all the characters simply sit around at a coffee shop and talk. I'm guessing there's going to be something going on and McWeeny's just out to lunch like usual.

Peven wrote:McWeeny's reviews anymore are worth less than used toilet paper

Seth Rogen disagrees.

But seriously, read McWeeny's review of this. He actually hates that the characters have backstories.

Really? because it seemed to me in that review that McWeeny was decrying the prevalence of clumsy on-screen exposition (sometimes involving back story) in Disney blockbusters in recent years - lazy screenwriting that just has characters tell their story rather than having the film show it.

Clearly, McWeeny isn't thinking straight.POTC is a franchise because of the need to show everything bloody hinted at as a bit of back story in the first film.Keeping in mind 2 & 3 were mostly shite, i say let them talk (it will save us from a 5 & 6).

Really? because it seemed to me in that review that McWeeny was decrying the prevalence of clumsy on-screen exposition (sometimes involving back story) in Disney blockbusters in recent years - lazy screenwriting that just has characters tell their story rather than having the film show it.

Yeah, but almost every film has that. Every film has characters talking about their pasts. It's part of character developement. Most films start with the characters at some point after their birth.

I think in this case what stuck in Drew's craw and made him focus on it was that the "backstory" seemed like a rip-off of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I can see where he's coming from because I think it'd be more rewarding to actually watch these connections being made and it would certainly be harder to write, but every film like this depends on a certain amount of backstory, so I don't think it's necessarily proof that the thing sucks.

King Of Nowhere wrote:Clearly, McWeeny isn't thinking straight.POTC is a franchise because of the need to show everything bloody hinted at as a bit of back story in the first film.

Yeah, I agree. The thing about Dead Man's Chest that typifies that sense of overkill to me was the way they turned the running gag of Jack's broken compass from the first film into a subplot about a mystical artifact. Not everything has to be explained!

King Of Nowhere wrote:Clearly, McWeeny isn't thinking straight.POTC is a franchise because of the need to show everything bloody hinted at as a bit of back story in the first film.

Yeah, I agree. The thing about Dead Man's Chest that typifies that sense of overkill to me was the way they turned the running gag of Jack's broken compass from the first film into a subplot about a mystical artifact. Not everything has to be explained!

It really is such a shame when something rather original and baked in mystery gets explained for explanation sake. All we really wanted to see in the sequels was Cap Jack sipping cocktails on a beach and dropping anecdotes. Maybe a couple of flashbacks, nice and brief to add texture. That's it.

Confession time: I found Dead Man's Chest to be one of the most purely enjoyable summer adventure films since Last Crusade, yes really. The third film is terrible and original just a little above ok, but damnit if I didn't love DMC in the cinema. I thought the sense of fun - Jack and the cannibals, the contant shifting of allegiances and fortunes, the expanded the mythology, the excellent SFX, Keith motherfucking Richards, the dialogue and even using throwaway bits from the first film to build up the world in the second was all great and delivered what sequels always should do but usually fail to, namely go bigger and better.

Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.

TonyWilson wrote:D'oh - well he's so good he transcends the third's shittiness then. I still stand by the rest of my comments on DMC though.

I really need to see DMC again. I loved the trailer, the idea of the cannibals, I just can't seem to remember the film... although I DO remember Keith Richards turning up at the end in teh cave. That was badass.

yes I went and saw it tonight, in 3D. My brother and I both agreed it's the weakest in the series but we're curious as to what Cap'n Jack's next adventure might be. I didn't find it nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be, it was an enjoyable romp at the movies. There were elements I could have done without but they weren't in it much (the spianards and the young lovers) so it didn't matter much. And as cool as the Flying Dutchman and Davy Jones were, I think I prefer the POTC version of The Queen Anne's Revenge better. I'm currently reading James A Owen's Here,There Be Dragons and this gave me hope about the living ship if WB ever gets off their arse and makes that book into a movie (I believe i'ts WB, I'm sure the Butcher can correct me)

In McWeeny's review he bitched about everyone talking about their back stories, I can only think of one character that did that, and I also found the comparison to Raiders a little off (The Marion/Indy relationship) granted it's been a couple of years since I watched all of Raiders but I didn't notice any similarities.

The conclusion does seem to be setting up for more sequels and I don't know. I think I prefer my POTC movies to be like Indy movies, self contained adventures, but like I said I want to see where Cap'n Jack goes next. However there shouldn't be as much Jack as this one had. This is finally The Jack Sparrow movie they've been building up to. No Orlando Bloom or Keira Knightly to share time with, it's all on Johnny's shoulders and it's just a bit much. There's no one for the audience to relate to, no hero for us to root for. I guess Jack is supposed to be that hero, but he's so cocky, so surefire, and continues his commentary and quips that we know he's in no danger or has any real struggle. It doesn't even seem like he wants to find the Fountain of youth. By adapting the book On Stranger Tides(which I readily admit I have not read) they've basically made our hero The Mcguffin, and even then he's not really the McGuffin, he's just kind of there. It gives it a very disjointed feel. Overall, did I get my monies worth? Probably. Will I buy it on DVD or BD, assuredly (but I'm a completest when it comes to series and collections). Will I watch it frequently? I don't know.

So I took the kids to see this this morning and I generally think this one might've been the best in the series if it had come first. As is, I'd definately put it second best.

The first half is goes between somewhat amusing and average. Nothing wrong with what's going on, it's just a lot of it felt like rushed and weaker versions of set pieces from previous movies in the series. There were some laughs here and there and the action was fine, just none of the sequences really felt original enough.

I found the characterization of Blackbeard a little lacking, or I guess I should say McShane was underused. He's one of those villains that blows his small load a little early. the sequence that shows he has telekinetic power over ropes is great, but it turns out to be the only time in the movie he uses his telekinetic power over ropes. You'd think that sort of thing would come back later in a bigger way but it doesn't. The same sorta goes for his use of voodoo dolls. They give him telekinetic voodoo, but then when we get to the climax, he's just another dude with a sword.

But other than the under-use of that character, I would say everything in the second is fabulous. Everything from the mermaid sequence on was really good. They were able to slow the movie down enough to build good tension, whereas in the first half everything felt a little rushed and Hans Zimmer was banging you over the head with his theme. It was like they filmed the movie in sequence and halfway through they all got a memo to be more patient with this thing. The characters interactions become more fun, the action becomes better paced and more original, and the special effects get put to better use.

Overall, I think this is a very nice time at the movies. I would definately recommend it as a fun family movie.

Spandau Belly said "fun family movie", not "family fun movie". There's a difference. Fun family movies are movies you can take your kids to. Family fun movies are movies that are illegal in most countries.

I remember when that bullshit shit Frequency movie came out with Dennis Quaid and kiss of death actor Jim Caviezel. Dennis Quaid had stooped to new lows when he did his own publicity for the film by him sitting there on TV talking about how good this film was. This is one thing he said, all with an embarressing big cheezy grin...

"Frequency is a fun family movie, that all the family can enjoy" Dickhead.

Spandau Belly wrote:whereas in the first half... Hans Zimmer was banging you over the head with his theme.

Oh God please no!!!!!

Definitely not watching. That gentleman would score a movie with a bloody snail taking 10 minutes to get from one side of the screen to the other and he'd still put in DUN DUN DUNDUN DUNDUN DU DU DUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!! music on it.

Wanker.

Last edited by Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat May 21, 2011 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The first one was kind of good, bar Orlando Bloom who, lets face it, got the gig because of his looks. It was fun, Johnny was camping it up and I enjoyed it. The second was a rehash of the first and that's when the rot set in. I had the misfortune to watch about half of the third (on a borrowed DVD, you honestly don't think I would've paid to see it, do you?) before concluding that this thing had well and truly run it's course. It offered nothing whatsoever. Worse than some of those shitty Star Wars prequels Lucas dredged up a few years back.The whole thing's been kind of ruined for me now.

It was nowhere near as bad as I heard but I would rate this the least of the bunch so far. I think Gore Verbinski has a better eye than Rob Marshall for staging fight scenes, perhaps for staging a film in general, and the flick was missing some of the humor of the previous entries. I also have to take points off for Marshall's choice for the first shot of the Queen Anne's Revenge. Capt. Jack Sparrow realizes he is on the ship of the pirate that every other pirate fears and you use a generic helicopter shot? Boo. I liked Barbossa's storyline but could have done without all the prophecy hoo-ha. Penelope Cruz is a welcome addition but I think the film could have used a scene or two of just her and McShane to really establish their relationship and add a facet or two to Blackbeard. On that note I don't recall any of this backstory recitation that everyone has been harping about. There is one scene that could qualify but I would call it giving detail. No, I didn't think there were enough unanswered questions warranting a fourth trip to the Caribbean, but I can say I enjoyed it. I understand Disney not wanting to leave money on the table, even if I think it's a shitty reason to make a movie, and judging by this weekend's take I'm sure we're going to meet the man with the crossbow.

so i finally saw that 4th POTC film. man, what a waste. while i admire that they attempted somewhat to get back to the basic adventure-like story of the 1st (and best of the original 3) film instead of the over-the-top effects extravaganzas of pts 2 and 3, the result was total failure. i was no big fan of orlando bloom in the original (i did like the sexiest tomboy beanpole in the films though) but this film made me appreciate him a lot more. what made those films work was that jack sparrow was not the central character. he was a main character interacting with orlando and beanpole, but they had equal weight, and the eccentricities of his character balanced out with the more grounded story between those two. they actually gave the films a bit of heart. this film kind of half-heartedly tries to do that with the missionary and the captured mermaid but it doesn't work because, a) the missionary isn't even introduced to the film until 1/3 of the way in, and the mermaid doesn't appear til 2/3 of the way in, so there's no time to establish a connection with them or chemistry between them (ironic, since the one thing this film DOES have in common with the original is that it's overly long). also, because it's introduced so late and is so poorly done, that storyline feels tacked on and doesn't mesh with the rest of the film. i remember reading that this film was based on a completely-unrelated-to-POTC novel that was adapted and turned into a POTC film, and i think the disjointedness shows.... i'd bet the mercenary-mermaid plot was one of the main things they borrowed from that book.

the film also demonstrates that a (watered-down, no pun intended) jack sparrow by himself isn't really capable of carrying one of these films. the interaction between him and the other characters in the first 3 films is why that character worked.... making him more central to the story removes that and makes the film tiresome. and in order to try to make it work, they had to tone him down, which hurts the character and the film even more. penelope cruz, who is insanely hot, just doesn't register, and certainly doesn't stand up as a worthy counterpart to jack. they needed someone with more fire for that role, someone you could believe could stand toe-to-toe with him and also tolerate him as a former/potential lover; someone like salma hayek, i think. blackbeard is ok but underdeveloped. geofrey rush is the only one who comes out of this not much worse for wear than he was going in.

i think they should probably just end the series with this one. i mean, better late than never, right?

Kim Masters wrote:Producer Jerry Bruckheimer says the decision to push Pirates of Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, which is set to return Johnny Depp to the Capt. Jack Sparrow role, was made because of script issues. He is hopeful that the film can be ready for summer 2016.

“We have an outline everyone loves but the script is not done,” Bruckheimer revealed in an exclusive interview with THR.

The move comes in the aftermath of The Lone Ranger's failure at the box office this summer. Disney has said that the $250 million-plus production from the team behind the Pirates movies could lead to a $190 million write down for the studio.

Asked whether the potential price tag of the next Pirates film played a role in the delay, Bruckheimer replies, “It’s all a factor. We want a script that everyone’s signed off on and a budget that everyone’s signed off on.” (Such projects have cost as much as $300 million in the past.) Coming up with a great script is “always hard,” Bruckheimer says, and after this summer, “everybody’s more cautious.” The summer saw several costly movies underperform.

Disney now hopes to keep the cost of the fifth Pirates movie under $200 million — a goal the studio is unlikely to meet. But bringing in Kon-Tiki directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg, who made their film on the water for a price, should help keep costs down. Nonetheless, industry observers have anticipated a tough negotiation between Disney and Bruckheimer, given the size of the Lone Ranger write down.

Bruckheimer says it was necessary to push the project because “we’re supposed to start in March and you start spending a lot of money now.” According to the producer, the Pirates filmmakers weren’t happy with screenwriter Jeff Nathanson’s initial script, and he’s now at work on a second attempt based on the well-received outline. But Bruckheimer asks, “How do you budget an outline?”

A source says the studio thought the original Nathanson script "was too expensive but it was also really complicated and hard to follow."

Asked whether he’s still confident that the project will come together, Bruckheimer says, “With any movie, you’re never confident. But it’s a billion-dollar franchise.” The last Pirates movie, 2011’s On Stranger Tides, grossed $1.04 billion

Disney is flush with product so the studio is not pressuring for a start. And the summer of 2015 already is packed with major films, including Warner Bros.' tentatively-titled Batman vs. Superman, set to open one week after Pirates' original July 17 date. Disney's schedule for 2015 still includes Star Wars: Episode VII, another Avengers movie and a Pixar film, Inside Out.

Brendon Connelly wrote:I’ve been trying to put together some bits and pieces of the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales plot for a while now, working from various fragments of behind-the-curtain info. Seeing as Disney have just now decided to push back the film’s release date from the super-crowded summer of 2015 – phew! – I thought it might be a good time to chew over what I’ve found out so far.

But as the script is being reworked right now some of the following will likely stretch a little. Don’t expect it to change outright – planning and casting is far too advanced for many radical alterations.

So, let’s try to put it together from the top down.

First of all, there’s going to be a new female lead, a sparring partner for Jack Sparrow. She’s nothing like him, mind you – despite being suspected of witchcraft, she’s actually a woman of science. Expect some sexual chemistry, but also expect it to be a touch one sided…

There’s more to her character, but the best stuff is very spoilery.

As for witches, they’re central to whole conceit. There are some other, actual witches involved. If Tia Dalma, from the second and third films, makes another appearance, it’s a minor one but it’ll be very easy to leave her out. These new witches have somewhat less of a hoodoo flavouring.

Keeping up the supernatural flavour, there’s also going to be a ghost in a leading role. It’s this character, a former member of the British military now sided with Barbossa on a revenge mission, that gives the film its title.

And just in case you miss the other half of the equation, the dripping wet Orlando Bloom or Keira Knightley roles, they’ll this time go to a couple of pretty young Brits from farming families. They’re pure subplot fodder, however, and if anything gets the chop it will be these two.

I can tell you that the film starts with a rather awkward wedding and climaxes with a riff on the myth of the Bermuda Triangle.

All in all, it seems to be just the sort of thing you’d expect from a Pirates movie. In short, it’s going to make Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer an absolute mint.

Despite the delay in its release, production on the film is still expected to get underway next year. From all of the info I have, I’m still full of questions and curiosity. Most of all, I think, I want to know who they’ll take as the female lead – think Ruth Wilson, Emily Blunt, Rebecca Hall or Alice Eve. It could be any of them, and I think they’d all bring something of their own.

Harry wrote:I came home from the screening, meaning to eviscerate the film as being like The Curse of the Black Pearl. A series that may live forever, but everything savory about it has turned to ash upon the tongue and guts. But before I could write, I saw that TEST PILOT with Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy was on TCM – I’d never seen it – and that was more important. TEST PILOT filled me with so much joy, that when I saw BOOM TOWN was playing next – I decided to cuddle with the memories of watching that film with my mother and her tales of Big Harry (my great grandfather) and the Burkburnett fields of the Oil Rush days.

Capone wrote:Before we even dig into the story or performances of the fifth PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film, pointlessly subtitled DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES, allow me to make a public service announcement that I thought I’d never have to make again, but apparently I do. It’s actually been a while since I’ve attended a preview screening of a 3-D movie that wasn’t animated, and I’ve actually grown to prefer seeing a film for the first time in 2-D. I’m not inherently against 3-D; it doesn’t give me a headache or lessen my enjoyment of a film because I have to wear those flimsy, smudged glasses.

The problem I find—and the reason for this PSA—is that many films offered in 3-D contain a great number of sequences set during the evening or in otherwise dark environments, and when you’re forced to wear lenses that dim your vision slightly, the resulting image looks all the more murky. (That might actually be a better subtitle for this chapter of the PIRATES franchise: THE MURKY DEPTHS.) The bottom line is—and always will be—that 3-D doesn’t work when the image begins dark. And let me assure you, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES is one murky movie on so many levels.